[Periprocedural management of anticoagulation therapy and in-hospital outcomes in patients with warfarin indication undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from the WAR-STENT registry]. / Gestione periprocedurale della terapia anticoagulante ed esiti intraospedalieri nei pazienti con indicazione a warfarin sottoposti ad angioplastica coronarica. Informazioni dal registro WAR-STENT.

BACKGROUND: In patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin, the management of OAC peri-procedure of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still not fully defined. To investigate clinical practice and outcomes associated with continuation vs interruption of OAC, with or without bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), we examined the database of the observational, prospective, multicenter Italian WAR-STENT registry. METHODS: The WAR-STENT registry was conducted in 2008-2010 in 37 Italian centers and included 411 consecutive patients in 157 of whom the peri-procedural international normalized ratio (INR) value was available. In relation to the continuation vs interruption of OAC, patients were divided into group 1 (n = 106) and group 2 (n = 51) respectively, and compared. RESULTS: The basal characteristics of the two groups were similar. The most frequent indication for OAC was atrial fibrillation and for PCI acute coronary syndromes, respectively. The pre-procedural mean value of INR was significantly different in group 1 vs group 2 (2.3 ± 0.4 vs 1.5 ± 0.2; p <0.001), while the use of antithrombotic drugs did not differ, except for LMWH which, albeit limited to only 14% of cases, was used significantly more frequently in group 2 (14% vs 2%; p=0.006). The radial approach was used significantly more often in group 1 vs group 2 (72% vs 45%; p=0.002). The in-hospital incidence of major bleeding complications was similar in groups 1 and 2 (4% vs 8%; p=0.27), as well as the occurrence of major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, re-revascularization of the treated vessel, stent thrombosis, stroke and venous thromboembolism (6% vs 6%; p=0.95). There was a tendency towards a higher incidence of minor access-site bleeding complications in group 1 patients treated by the femoral route. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients with an indication for OAC with warfarin and undergoing PCI, the continuation vs interruption of OAC (essentially without LMWH bridging) strategies appears similar in terms of efficacy and safety. In consideration of the superior convenience, peri-procedural continuation of OAC should therefore generally be preferred, with the possible exception of patients in whom the femoral approach is required for the procedure.

Inotropic therapy is unsuccessful: wrong conceptual target or wrong therapeutic tools?

Since a depressed contractility has long been considered the primary defect in patients with heart failure, the use of inotropic agents has been regarded as a logical approach to treat this syndrome. Despite this conceptual framework, these drugs have not yet established themselves in the treatment of chronic heart failure and their long-term use was associated with an excessive mortality while the short-term intravenous administration in critically ill patients produced only acute hemodynamic results without a stable clinical improvement. At least four mechanisms could explain this discrepancy: their arrhythmogenicity, their direct cardiotoxic effects, the downregulation of the beta-adrenoreceptors, and the energetic cost of inotropic intervention. Moreover, in many patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy the reduction in contractility could be considered as a compensatory mechanism since hibernation is able to decrease the metabolic requirements of the heart. The contractile force of the heart can be augmented not only by an increased availability of intracellular calcium for troponin C but also by an increased sensitivity of the contractile proteins to calcium. A new class of inotropes working with this mechanism is now available and could represent a real improvement in this challenging therapeutic area.

In-hospital management and outcome of patients on warfarin undergoing coronary stent implantation: results of the multicenter, prospective WARfarin and coronary STENTing (WAR-STENT) registry.

The in-hospital management of patients on warfarin undergoing coronary stent implantation (PCI-S) is variable, and the in-hospital outcome incompletely defined. To determine the adherence to the current recommendations, and the incidence of adverse events, we carried out the prospective, multicenter, observational WARfarin and coronary STENTing (WAR-STENT) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00722319). All consecutive patients on warfarin undergoing PCI-S at 37 Italian centers were enrolled and followed for 12 months. Outcome measures were: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, need for urgent revascularization, stroke, and venous thromboembolism, and major and minor bleeding. In this paper, we report the in-hospital findings. Out of the 411 patients enrolled, 92% were at non-low (ie, moderate or high) thromboembolic risk. The radial approach and bare-metal stents were used in 61% and 60% of cases, respectively. Drug-eluting stents were essentially reserved to patients with diabetes, which in turn, significantly predicted the implantation of drug-eluting stents (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-3.17; P=.002). The in-hospital MACE and major bleeding rates were 2.7% and 2.1%, respectively. At discharge, triple therapy (TT) of warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel was prescribed to 76% of patients. Prescription of TT was significantly more frequent in the non-low thromboembolic risk group. Non-low thromboembolic risk, in turn, was a significant predictor of TT prescription (OR, 11.2; 95% CI, 4.83-26.3; P<.0001). In conclusion, real-world warfarin patients undergoing PCI-S are largely managed according to the current recommendations. As a consequence, the risk of in-hospital MACE and major bleedings appears limited and acceptable.